Ashish Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Another

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the bail rejection order dated 22.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge Court No.2/Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Farrukhabad in Bail Application No.1318 of 2025 in Special Session Trial No.352 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.263 of 2023, under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the Staterespondent no.1 and perused the entire record. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2.

¶12

In short, the prosecution story is that on 01.06.2023 at about 10.30 pm the informant's son Udaypal @ Chudail, who belongs to SC community, was brutally assaulted by the accused persons namely, Rampal Srivastava, Rajeev, Rajan and Lalla. Accused persons have also abused him by caste related words.

¶13

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Initially the impugned FIR has been lodged under Sections 323, 504, 392 IPC and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(gh) of SC/ST Act but during investigation section 308 IPC was added but charge sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 504, 308 IPC and Sections 3(1)(d) and

¶14

CRLA No. 1694 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

3(1)(gh) of SC/ST Act against which the appellant has applied for bail which was allowed but subsequently at the stage of framing of charge, the informant has moved an application for altering the charge on 13.05.2025, thereafter, Section 307 IPC as added. Further submission is that as per medical examination report, all injuries have been found simple in nature. As per statement of the injured as well as perusal of record, ingredients of Section 307/34 IPC is fully missing, therefore, no alleged offence is made out against the appellant. Further submission is that there is no possibility of early conclusion of trial in near future, hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. Appellant is languishing in jail since 14.10.2025 having previous criminal history of one case in which he is on bail. Further submission is that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶17

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the the prayer for bail of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶18

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶19

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶20

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set-aside.

¶21

Let the appellant- Ashish Srivastava, involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶22

CRLA No. 1694 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶25

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶26

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶27

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶28

(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶30

March 16, 2026

¶31

Ajeet

¶32

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashish Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Sakal Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rizwana Parveen vs State of U.P. and Another

Shubhlakshmi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Rubi Sonkar vs Shri Abhishek Maurya

Aman Singh @ Abhay Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Rama Enterprises vs State of U.P. and Another